Currie, R v

Currie, R v

The determination of whether there was an accident within the meaning of s2(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is a procedural issue for the judge, not the jury. The prosecution bears the burden of proof to the criminal standard. On the facts accepted by the judge, there was an accident, so no notice of intended prosecution was required and the conviction is safe.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Paul Alan Currie
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction in Crown Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld
Legal Topics
Dangerous Driving, Notice of Intended Prosecution, Procedural Requirements, Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Paul Alan Currie

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction in Crown Court

  1. 1 Whether there was an 'accident' within the meaning of s2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the issue of 'accident' is for the judge or jury to decide
  3. 3 On whom the burden of proof lies regarding the existence of an accident and the applicable standard of proof

Ratio Decidendi

The determination of whether there was an accident within the meaning of s2(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is a procedural issue for the judge, not the jury. The prosecution bears the burden of proof to the criminal standard. On the facts accepted by the judge, there was an accident, so no notice of intended prosecution was required and the conviction is safe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The conviction for dangerous driving stands.